Along with the Campus Center and the reconstruction of the Hanawalt House, the music department is also going through changes. Founders Hall room 21 received new chairs, desks and carpet. Many other areas of the campus were improved this summer.
Because of the recommendations from the Capital Projects Evaluation Committee, which rated projects according to five criteria, including those that would have a profound impact on the image and perception of students and in creating a more professional learning and teaching environment, many buildings at the University of La Verne were renovated over the summer in order to update and modernize the school.
The Mainiero Building, Founders Hall, University Advancement, Davenport Dining Hall, Sneaky Park Amphitheater and the common area in the dorms were all refurbished, renovated or rejuvenated. The University also redesigned space in the Law School to support community outreach clinics, which cost $75,000.
“Everything done on campus came out really beautiful,” Debbie Deacy, director of purchasing and procurement, said.
The Oaks, Stu-Han and Brandt were all renovated. The common areas were given new paint, carpeting, furniture and LCD screen TVs with DirecTV added to the residence halls. The pool tables in Brandt and Stu-han were also refurbished. The refurbished common areas cost $300,000.
“The new lounges are more comfortable for students who reside in the dorms,” Deacy said.
“I enjoy the remodeled common area because it is comfortable, relaxing and a nice setting to get together with your friends to socialize and entertain,” said Randy Pozo, sophomore economics major and Oaks resident. “It is a pleasure having this wonderful furniture in the lounge for students to enjoy.”
Classrooms in the Mainiero Building and Founders Hall were also given new paint, carpeting and furniture. Stadium type seating was also installed in Founders Hall room 21.
“The renovations in Mainero and Founders Hall make the learning and teaching environment much more effective,” Vice President of University Relations Jean Bjerke said. The University paid $150,000 for the Founders Hall renovations.
University Advancement was also revamped and given a facelift, along with its new title. In addition to new paint, carpet and some new furniture, new walls were built to add offices.
“This is the first refurbishing this building has had since we moved into the building 13 years ago,” Bjerke said.
Since University Advance-ment is where major donors visit, the image of the building needed to make a good impression, said Bjerke.
The University Advancement renovations cost $90,000.
“The University Advancement offices were seen as inappropriately shoddy considering that it is the point of contact for major donors,” Roger Hardy, deputy vice president of major projects and development, said.
Hardy chaired the Project Evaluation Committee, composed of students, faculty and administrators, through a sophisticated process where projects were rated according to five criteria: learning environment, administrative efficiency, facilities infrastructure, image and perception and return on investment.
The completed summer projects were the ones rated the highest of all projects considered.
“For example, the renovation of Founders and Mainiero classrooms was viewed as having a profound impact on the image and perception of students and prospective students and in creating a more professional learning and teaching environment,” he said.
The new automatic tray return has added a touch of modernity to Davenport Dining Hall. The interior and exterior doors between the President’s Dining Room and Davenport were replaced. New flat screen televisions were also added to Davenport. The upgrades cost $150,000.
“Improvements to the Davenport facility, which were funded by a grant from Sodexho, improved sanitation, ambiance and organization of the central dining hall,” Hardy said.
The University spent more than $500,000 on all the renovations, according to Robert Beebe, assistant director of facilities management.
“None of these improvements was driven by code or safety mandates or senior staff fiat,” said Hardy. “There were all in the realm of discretionary improvements. The committee process has helped us focus our attention where it will have maximum impact.”
The projects ranked highest on the list were undertaken. Each of these projects had a sponsor who defined the project and articulated the need and how it would advance us. The recommendations of the committee were endorsed by the administration and funded by senior management in the budget process.
“The renovations done on campus were more aesthetic than structural,” Beebe said. “The students and faculty are able to see the renovations.”
Natalie Veissalov can be reached at email@example.com.